First we shape evolutionary theory.
Then it shapes us.
|
|
First we shape evolutionary theory. |
RELEASES
|
For more information: March 22, 2008 Darwinian blunderbuss kills two birds with one stone The target Darwinists have in their sights may be religion but also in the line of fire are consciousness and free will ROSENDALE NY: 19th century activists intent on wrenching control over education and professions from the Established Church of England found in natural selection a perfect weapon. It has ever since provided anti-church activists with heavy artillery. But as a weapon it's turning out to be more blunderbuss than cannon. No matter how precisely you aim it or what you aim it at, everything else in its path is going to come under fire. You may find you've ended up "throwing out the baby along with the bathwater"! The baby in this case is our free will. Free will gets caught up along with gods and ghosts by how scientists distinguish between what's natural and what's supernatural. What's "natural" is everything that can operate physical processes to make things happen in the physical world. Everything else is "supernatural"--gods and ghosts, things like that that aren't material and so can't operate physical processes. What do you think? Would you include free will in what's natural? There are pros and cons. One argument for is, if we experience having free will we should include it--if it's part of our nature then it's part of "nature" in general. But one argument against is, if you do include it then you've opened the door for other things like free will--the christian soul for example--to sneak back in. Which is more important? Having science reflect our conscious experience, or using it to fight religion? The most vocal spokepeople for science have made the choice for us. Defending against religion is more important. Along with gods and demons and christian souls, free will has been banished to the supernatural. According to the logic of Physicalism (as this is called), the experience of having free will is actually an illusion--all behavior is driven by brain chemistry. Our experience of free will is simply consciousness registering what the brain's just done. It's like the screen on the back of a digital camera--it shows what kind of image the lens is making but it can't take the picture. Our decisions are like that. They don't get made in consciousness, they're made in brain chemistry first. When Christians demand that god's role in Creation be included along with natural selection in the science classroom, evolutionists can refer to physicalism to justify their opposition to anything supernatural being included in the teaching of science. (78% of evolutionary scientists said they were physicalists in a survey reported in the July-August 2007 issue of American Scientist.) I wonder, though, if that's what we all want. Part of the point of teaching used to be to educate the conscious self. Isn't that why we were taught literature? Do we now want to teach children in school that their behavior is determined, as all chemistry is, and it doesn't matter what they feed into their consciousness, things will work out just the same? The movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" wants to focus our attention on science's indiscrimate use of the Darwinian blunderbuss to mow down religious opposition to Darwinism. Let's note it's also mowing down traditional ideals of a conscious self able to arrive at and carry out its own decisions. If we think that ideal is worth maintaining, if we've moved on from the 19th century face-off between science and religion, let's have science relax its restrictions on what's supernatural and apply some of its attention to what for most of us is the most basic fact in our experience--our experience of free will. Again, there's pro and con. One argument for expanding what's "natural" to include "mind" involves "qualia"--experiences like the blue of the sky that supposedly can exist only in consciousness. Yet we can remember the color of the sky from one day to the next. If "qualia" can get recorded in memory there's no logic in claiming they can't drive other physical processes, too, such as being spoken about. Whatever it is that most crucially distinguishes conscious experience from brain chemistry, if we can talk about it then it's driving physical action, physicalism is wrong and conscious thinking can end in decisions that get executed in the real world. Arguments against are likely to involve the current state of physics, which is said to be so complete that free will would violate it, which is inconceivable. Any demonstration of free will, such as moving an object arbitrarily, is said to be determined. Move it again, and that's determined too. And so on. I can't see any way to resolve this disagreement. Most people who aren't evolutionary scientists won't have heard of physicalism. They may never have had to think about free will, about whether it exists or not--not, that is, until they come across natural selection. Natural selection is a purely physical process. A purely physical process operating on simple matter is not going to generate "mind" and "free will," not unless they too are physical. So teaching natural selection carries with it the implication that whatever evolved in us, including free will and our other mental capabilities, must be physical too. Natural selection is the poster child for physicalism, and that's why I began by referring to Darwinism as the blunderbuss. Creationist claims made in connection with the movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" need not concern the humanist. But bear in mind that the same physicalism that excludes from the classroom any talk of god as Creator also excludes the celebration of free will. We may be jeopardizing far more than we stand to gain. If you're concerned about what your children are being taught, ask their science teacher if he or she believes in scientific determinism and free will. If the answers are yes to scientific determinism and no to free will, you may conclude you have a problem. My recommendation: ask that evolution be taught with no mention of any mechanism. END |